[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You don’t understand at all AND you don’t listen. I said LIFE was tough… but THEY were better off. We speak different languages see? Different standards. “As a man thinks in his heart so is he”.[/quote]
Are you serious with this? Poverty was ok to deal with because the family unit was stronger? First, you are just making this statement with no support of this idea at all. I have never been informed that black families were all stronger before the 60’s until right now.
I would say if someone is living in poverty and someone claims they are better off for it, that person needs some screws tightened.
Some of the things being written here show way more than you seem to be aware of.
[quote]
Really? What’s funny is there are people reading this thread right now who think I’m a religious whacko who get this. They’d probably shoot themselves before being seen saying so but they’re out there. Aren’t ya guys?[/quote]
? Who is agreeing with you? I am not even sure what you are trying to say because you seem stuck on “liberals” and the idea that the 60’s were the salvation for the black family.
I would LOVE it if one of those guys who agrees with you would step in this thread and make sense of what you are writing.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I would be most grateful if somebody else could help the dear professor out please. I, it appears, lack sufficient communication skills.[/quote]
You sure do if “FIND ME PROOF OF THIS” doesn’t register.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The black family was systematically dismantled by mostly white liberal politicians building a voting block of dependent zombies who could have been any color. Blacks were instant fodder because of their history here.[/quote]
OK…so you blame “liberals” for why the black family was dismantled…and not all of those years of literally tearing families apart for slavery or the decades of demeaning social treatment or under-representation.
[/quote]
I don’t know; that dismantling seems to have grown worse since the late 60s. I’m pretty sure that statistics would back this up…
Are you claiming that the influence of slavery and of “the decades of demeaning social treatment or under-representation” has increased with time?
[/quote]
Here I have consolidated the conversation for y’all. I think X wants Chushin to show him a statistic that you’re “pretty sure would back this up”. And I think Chushin wants X to tell him why he thinks things back in the days of slavery and the following decades are more responsible for unraveling black families than more modern liberal policies.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The black family was systematically dismantled by mostly white liberal politicians building a voting block of dependent zombies who could have been any color. Blacks were instant fodder because of their history here.[/quote]
OK…so you blame “liberals” for why the black family was dismantled…and not all of those years of literally tearing families apart for slavery or the decades of demeaning social treatment or under-representation.
[/quote]
I don’t know; that dismantling seems to have grown worse since the late 60s and before. I’m pretty sure that statistics would back this up…
Are you claiming that the influence of slavery and of “the decades of demeaning social treatment or under-representation” has increased with time?
[/quote]
Here I have consolidated the conversation for y’all. I think X wants Chushin to show him a statistic that you’re “pretty sure would back this up”. And I think Chushin wants X to tell him why he thinks things back in the days of slavery and the following decades are more responsible for unraveling black families than more modern liberal policies.[/quote]
I think that X wants evidence that black families were somehow “stronger” back in the 60’s, as well es evidence that “liberals” are responsible for tearing apart these so-called more stable families. I base that thought on this comment from X:
It is a simple question that I am very interested in seeing the answer to, but it seems to have been ignored.
I would say if someone is living in poverty and someone claims they are better off for it, that person needs some screws tightened.
[/quote]
I am sure that a majority of the black population living in poverty was not a contributor at all to the disproportionate number of black people resorting to crime to sustain themselves. It had to be the lack of a “stable” family.
I would say if someone is living in poverty and someone claims they are better off for it, that person needs some screws tightened.
[/quote]
I am sure that a majority of the black population living in poverty was not a contributor at all to the disproportionate number of black people resorting to crime to sustain themselves. It had to be the lack of a “stable” family.
[/quote]
…and liberals. Apparently, poverty breeds “Christianity and lack of divorce”.
I think that X wants evidence that black families were somehow “stronger” back in the 60’s, as well es evidence that “liberals” are responsible for tearing apart these so-called more stable families. I base that thought on this comment from X:
It is a simple question that I am very interested in seeing the answer to, but it seems to have been ignored.[/quote]
That is exactly what I wrote and meant.
It is strange to me how they don’t seem to be able to understand what I am writing at all but instead focus more on the fact that I wrote it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OK…so you blame “liberals” for why the black family was dismantled…and not all of those years of literally tearing families apart for slavery or the decades of demeaning social treatment or under-representation.[/quote]
You appear to have dodged the question X. Why have black families been torn apart since the 60’s? Why were they much more stable prior to the 60’s?[/quote]
That was the point I was making. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough?
[/quote]
? Who is saying families are now being torn apart after the 60’s? Who is proving they were more stable before the 60’s? Where are you all getting this idea from?
The only person making the statement that black families were all better off during the 60’s is Tiribulus. What are you talking about?[/quote]
Come on! You being serious? Why were 80% of black children born to married parents in the 60’s and why has it dropped to 30% today?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OK…so you blame “liberals” for why the black family was dismantled…and not all of those years of literally tearing families apart for slavery or the decades of demeaning social treatment or under-representation.[/quote]
You appear to have dodged the question X. Why have black families been torn apart since the 60’s? Why were they much more stable prior to the 60’s?[/quote]
That was the point I was making. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough?
[/quote]
? Who is saying families are now being torn apart after the 60’s? Who is proving they were more stable before the 60’s? Where are you all getting this idea from?
The only person making the statement that black families were all better off during the 60’s is Tiribulus. What are you talking about?[/quote]
Come on! You being serious? Why were 80% of black children born to married parents in the 60’s and why has it dropped to 30% today?[/quote]
First, once again, divorce rates alone do not reflect the number of broken families. A father leaving a family would not register, not to mention using stats to form such a specific conclusion as you are.
Further, many more people stay single now. That doesn’t mean they lack values or that Black History Month is a negative.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OK…so you blame “liberals” for why the black family was dismantled…and not all of those years of literally tearing families apart for slavery or the decades of demeaning social treatment or under-representation.[/quote]
You appear to have dodged the question X. Why have black families been torn apart since the 60’s? Why were they much more stable prior to the 60’s?[/quote]
That was the point I was making. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough?
[/quote]
? Who is saying families are now being torn apart after the 60’s? Who is proving they were more stable before the 60’s? Where are you all getting this idea from?
The only person making the statement that black families were all better off during the 60’s is Tiribulus. What are you talking about?[/quote]
Come on! You being serious? Why were 80% of black children born to married parents in the 60’s and why has it dropped to 30% today?[/quote]
First, once again, divorce rates alone do not reflect the number of broken families. A father leaving a family would not register, not to mention using stats to form such a specific conclusion as you are.
Further, many more people stay single now. That doesn’t mean they lack values or that Black History Month is a negative.[/quote]
What’s Black History Month got to do with it? You’ve got a one track mind. Look at the link on the previous page I posted that shows a direct link between the breakdown of the family unit and poverty, crime, education, health etc. And it shows, not just children that were born out of wedlock but children growing up in a one parent household.
(the above picture is a compilation of mug shots wearing Obama gear)
Professor x thanks for hijacking my thread and adding nothing to these pages that a Magic 8 Ball couldn’t have done without all the hot air.
You sir are nothing more than a parrot. All you do is deny everything that is said as if that is a magic wand to make facts not so or you answer a question with a question. Or you repeat liberal mantra as if we are all in kindergarten and haven’t heard it through the major media 1000 times. There’s a reason
If you are an example of what a discussion on race relations are today would involve then I would have to agree with Richard Nixon. Nixon was ridiculed for his statement found on lost White House tapes saying it would take 500 years for blacks to assimilate into America
The history of America, post the implementation of Civil Rights in the 1960s has been this: white people abandon an urban area to blacks, flee to suburbs, creating prosperity in the process wherever they go. Meanwhile in the city whites abandon, black people elect a socialist black government that redistributes the dwindling tax revenues to create an artificial black middle through public employment; business and outside capital for investment in the city dries up; black people leave the city because of lack of job creation and head to suburbs.
Rinse and repeat (with the added of bonus gentrification by whites into the urban misery created by black rule, mysteriously making the city livable again).
Today’s racial equality I suppose is an excuse to take revenge for something todays young blacks never had to suffer through and punish whites that had nothing to do with. It’s polarizing and divisive but most of all I’m tired of all the hot air.
P.S.
Don’t pretend not to be one or the other, liberal or conservative, because that’s really not true. Your answers are telling one thing.
Could you explain the relationship between your post and the photo of jailed Obama supporters? I am not quite sure the relationship your trying to establish.
From what I gather you are saying by posting the photo that people who have supported the president have been jailed and this is to illustrate which point your trying to make?
What does the Richard Nixon comment have to do with your initial argument on black history month or on the incarcerated Obama supporters photo?
Your point on LBJ’s Great Society has merit but ignores why Whites left in the first place. Whites left because of economic decline in the cities and less opportunities to be found due to market downturn. Whites left because of improper urban planning that encouraged putting a highway through a city destroying the social fabric of a city and a sense of community. Whites left because of violence and social decay that spurred from poor public housing projects. Whites left because there was the mortgage interest tax deduction that made it more economically viable to live in the suburbs.
From what I gather you are saying by posting the photo that people who have supported the president have been jailed and this is to illustrate which point your trying to make? [/quote]
It’s pretty self explanatory.
The dregs of society go for a certain “tolerant” party that releases them back with you and me to create more chaos after short or no sentencing at all. Even gives them free stuff to make it up to them, free phone, free food, free housing, free healthcare. It’s called socialism.
One party has been trying to collapse our system through financial chaos. They continue to borrow money from China in order to give free stuff away and this essentially puts us all into bondage. Certain members of society don’t care and continue to vote for politicians that will enslave our country through debt.
The people in the mug shots generally do not wish to work hard like the rest of us, try to tilt the system in their favor and wind up caged like animals in jail where they can’t harm us. The question you should be asking is why don’t we have criminals wearing Romney shirts and what does that say?
There. In keeping with professor x’s strategy I answered your question by asking you a question. Not very productive is it?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OK…so you blame “liberals” for why the black family was dismantled…and not all of those years of literally tearing families apart for slavery or the decades of demeaning social treatment or under-representation.[/quote]
You appear to have dodged the question X. Why have black families been torn apart since the 60’s? Why were they much more stable prior to the 60’s?[/quote]
That was the point I was making. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough?
[/quote]
? Who is saying families are now being torn apart after the 60’s? Who is proving they were more stable before the 60’s? Where are you all getting this idea from?
The only person making the statement that black families were all better off during the 60’s is Tiribulus. What are you talking about?[/quote]
Come on! You being serious? Why were 80% of black children born to married parents in the 60’s and why has it dropped to 30% today?[/quote]
I’ve seen way too many of PX’s “discussions” to get any further involved in this, but I have a favor to ask of him.
X, please ask both your mother and father if they believe that the black family was stronger in the 50s and 60s than it is now.
On the off chance that you do this, please let us all know their thoughts.
Thanks.
[/quote]
Both of you seem to be missing the point. You are discussing some SUBJECTIVE opinion of what a “strong family” even is. Unless one of you provides some proof of this, you are speaking out of your ass.
No, my parents would not say that about the 60’s and 50’s. They would say that many families lost the fathers as they would simply leave. They would say that social pressures actually stressed many families to the point of breaking. They would say that Christian views of marriage themselves have decreased across the board. That means making some statement about “the strong black family of the 60’s” with no research and no personal life experience being a black person in this country leaves whatever point you think you are making flat out baseless.
What’s Black History Month got to do with it? You’ve got a one track mind. Look at the link on the previous page I posted that shows a direct link between the breakdown of the family unit and poverty, crime, education, health etc. And it shows, not just children that were born out of wedlock but children growing up in a one parent household.[/quote]
My comment initially was about Black History Month. If you are trying to make some scientific connection between family units and crime, you will have to do better than some correlational study focused on race.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Come on! You being serious? Why were 80% of black children born to married parents in the 60’s and why has it dropped to 30% today?[/quote]
One potential reason: the disappearance of shotgun marriages.
Until the early 1970s, shotgun marriage was the norm in premarital sexual relations. The custom was succinctly stated by one San Francisco resident in the late 1960s: “If a girl gets pregnant you married her. There wasn’t no choice. So I married her.”
Since 1969, however, shotgun marriage has gradually disappeared (see table 1). For whites, in particular, the shotgun marriage rate began its decline at almost the same time as the reproductive technology shock. And the disappearance of shotgun marriages has contributed heavily to the rise in the out-of-wedlock birth rate for both white and black women. In fact, about 75 percent of the increase in the white out-of-wedlock first-birth rate, and about 60 percent of the black increase, between 1965 and 1990 is directly attributable to the decline in shotgun marriages. If the shotgun marriage rate had remained steady from 1965 to 1990, white out-of-wedlock births would have risen only 25 percent as much as they have. Black out-of-wedlock births would have increased only 40 percent as much.
